BananaIP Counsels Logo

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Image accompanying blogpost on "Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction"

Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction

A Taiwanese adhesive tape company successfully obtained an injunction against a competitor using “Reindeer” and “Reindeer Wonder” trademarks on PVC pipes. The Court found these marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Deer” brand and intended to mislead customers. Continue Reading Non-use of trademark is not a valid defense against injunction
April 29, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 772Views 1Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits"

Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits

The Delhi High Court allowed an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrict their use of the mark “TOWER” to manufacture and sell dry fruits. This Court stated that a defendant cannot determine the ambit of what constitutes “Plaintiff’s goods of interest”. Continue Reading Delhi High Court passes order restraining the use of trademark “TOWER” for manufacture and sale of Dry fruits
March 22, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 668Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections."

The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.

The Delhi High Court has sent a trademark application for the word “Bharat” with a device back to the examiner for re-evaluation. While a previous court order ruled the mark distinctive, it failed to address objections about potential genericness. This case highlights the importance of a thorough trademark examination process. Continue Reading The Delhi High Court directs the Examiner to advertise the ‘Bharat’ mark after examining all the objections.
March 21, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 701Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court"

Rejecting Patent Applications without Comprehensive Analysis Contradicts Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc & Anr vs the Controller of Patents, accepted an appeal challenging the refusal order dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Assistant Controller in respect of patent application No. 2458/DELNP/2013. Brief Facts The patent application titled “Nonwoven Composite Abrasive Comprising Diamond Abrasive Particles” was filed before the Indian Patent Office on March 20, 2013. Pursuant to a request for examination by the appellant, a First Examination Report…
March 20, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 494Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration "

Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration

The Delhi High Court has faulted the Patent Office for rejecting a patent application without adequate reasoning. The case involved a beverage can closure design, and the Controller’s decision lacked clarity and failed to address the applicant’s arguments effectively. The Court has sent the case back for a proper re-examination, highlighting the need for thoroughness in patent application reviews. Continue Reading Patent refusal order set aside, matter remanded back for DeNovo consideration
March 18, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 474Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Patent Amendment rules 2024"

Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect, significant changes introduced.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Patent (Amendment) Rules 2024 come into effect,…
March 17, 2024 Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 2226Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement."

Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case on patent claims, coverage, validity and infringement.

The Delhi High Court in Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma addressed a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the anti-cancer drug Olaparib. To counter a patent infringement claim, the defendant needs to raise a plausible challenge to the patent’s validity. Patent coverage (what the patent protects) is distinct from the specific details disclosed in the patent document. This case involved a species patent (Olaparib) claimed within the scope of a broader genus patent. Continue Reading Kudos Pharma v. Natco Pharma: A case…
March 15, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Patents 0Comment 1118Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "The words "KONDRU" and "LOBAN" are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court"

The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that common words like “KONDRU” and “LOBAN” in the context of ayurvedic products cannot be exclusively trademarked. This decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness in trademark registration. Continue Reading The words ‘KONDRU’ and ‘LOBAN’ are Publici Juris, says the Delhi High Court
March 15, 2024 Intellectual Property 0Comment 509Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Image accompanying blogpost on "THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF INFRINGEMENT, STAY OF SUIT AND DAMAGES IN TRADEMARK CASES"

The changing dynamics of Infringement, Stay of Suit and damages in Trademark Cases

This blog post summarizes four recent trademark cases from various High Courts across India, and provides important takeaways relating to trademarks. In one of the cases, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that a trademark infringement suit can be stayed if a rectification is pending against the same trademark, although it was filed by another party. In another suit, the Delhi High Court, allowed the Defendant in the suit to conduct business under a modified name during the pendency of…
March 14, 2024 Case Reviews, Intellectual Property, Trademarks 0Comment 799Views 0Like
Share

Read more

Connect with Us

BananaIP Counsels

No.40, 3rd Main Road, JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 |  +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34
Email: contact@bananaip.com

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes
BananaIP Counsels

BananaIP has been acknowledged as a women-owned enterprise, certified by WEConnect International.

WeConnect International certifies BananaIP as a Woman-Owned Firm

Connect with us

BananaIP Counsels

Office Address

No.40, 3rd Main Road,  JC Industrial Estate, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore – 560 062.

Telephone: +91-76250 93758 | +91-80-49536207 | +91-80-26860414/24/34

Email: contact@bananaip.com

© 2004-2024 BananaIP Counsels. All Rights Reserved.